I have previously analyzed and evaluated the case against the Swoon Theory presented by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli in Chapter 8 of their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA):
My conclusion was that all nine of their objections against the Swoon Theory FAIL, and that their attempt to refute the Swoon Theory FAILED.
If I have already analyzed and evaluated their objections against the Swoon Theory, then why go back to evaluate their nine objections all over again? I am planning to publish a book defending the Swoon Theory against these objections, so I have been working to revise and improve my argument analysis of these objections (each objection constitutes an argument against the Swoon Theory).
Now that I have revised and improved my analysis of their nine objections, I want to work my way through the objections again, to make sure that my previous responses to these objections still make sense in relation to my revised and improved analysis of the objections. Also, my revised and improved analysis might reveal some additional problems that I had not previously noticed.
The case against the Swoon Theory is one important part of a case for the resurrection of Jesus, presented by Kreeft and Tacelli in Chapter 8 of HCA. So, if they FAILED to refute the Swoon Theory, then their case for the resurrection of Jesus also FAILS. For more about this larger context, and for clarification about the content of the Swoon Theory, see my previous post called “Careful Argument Analysis of Objections to the Swoon Theory.”